Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.41 seconds)O.P.Sharma & Ors vs High Court Of Punjab & Haryana on 9 May, 2011
21. While recapitulating the duties of a lawyer
towards the court and society, being a member
of the legal profession, this Court in O.P.
Sharma v. High Court of P&H [O.P. Sharma v. High
Court of P&H, (2011) 6 SCC 86 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ)
218 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 821 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 11]
has observed that : (SCC p. 92, para 17)
'17. The role and status of lawyers at the
beginning of sovereign and democratic India
is accounted as extremely vital in deciding
that the nation's administration was to be
governed by the rule of law.'
The Bench emphasised the role of eminent
lawyers in the framing of the Constitution. The
emphasis was also laid on the concept that
lawyers are the officers of the court in the
administration of justice.
Chander Singh vs Chottulal on 18 January, 1994
The Rajasthan High Court in the case
of Chander Singh v. Chottulal AIR 1994 Raj 186,
while commenting upon the aforesaid
provisions of the Code, held as under:
Naresh Chand Gupta vs Braham Prakash And Smt. Dayawati on 20 July, 2007
delayed is justice denied'. In a situation like this,
callousness, indifference and laxity on the part of
the plaintiffs in pursuing the suit cannot be
tolerated. It cannot be the privilege of the plaintiffs
to file a suit and not to prosecute it or enter an
appearance or keep the matter pending indefinitely.
A Division Bench of this Court of which one of us
(A.K. Sikri, J) was the party had the occasion to deal
with precisely this very aspect in greater detail in
the case of Naresh Chand Gupta v. Braham
Prakash, (2007) 97 DRJ 193. Our purpose would be
served in extracting the following portion
therefrom:-
Sarjeet Kaur vs Gurmail Singh And Anr. on 12 August, 1999
In the
case of Sarjeet Kaur (supra), the Court
held as under:
Joginder Singh And Ors. vs Smt. Manjit Kaur on 14 January, 1999
The language of the impugned
order clearly shows that the
plaintiff had exhausted all limits
for seeking adjournment on
every score, whatsoever. The
very purpose of granting the last
opportunity stood frustrated by a
grant of six subsequent
r adjournments, but even then the
plaintiff neither summoned
witnesses nor examined any.
Wonder if there was any other
choice left before the learned
trial court but to pass the
impugned order. This court had
the occasion to discuss the scope
of such power of the court and
the consequence of persistent
default on the part of the party in
the trial Court, in the case
of Joginder Singh v. Smt. Manjit
Kaur Civil Revision No. 5885 of
1998, decided on 14.1.1999, held as
under:
Bashir Ahmed vs Mehmood Hussain Shah on 20 March, 1995
13. Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in its
unamended form was commented upon by the
Apex Court in Bashir Ahmed v. Mehmood
Hussain Shah, AIR 1995 SC 1857, in the following
words:
Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
In Salem
Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of
India, AIR 2005 SC 3353, the Supreme Court
commented upon these amendments in Order
17 Code of Civil Procedure in the following
words:
Malhan Builders And Ors. vs Durkhanie Jadran And Ors. on 28 August, 2006
15. Learned counsel for the appellant had
referred to the judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in Malhan Builders, v. Durkhanie
Jadran, 2006 (91) DRJ 106 (DB). However, we are
of the opinion that this judgment would not
come to the rescue of the appellant. In that
case, also the evidence of the plaintiff was
closed. The Division Bench held that the Court
was entitled to proceed with the case and to
::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2024 21:23:28 :::CIS
give decisions on merits. The plaintiff was,
.
Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs Gopal on 20 September, 2021
6. It was held in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal,
(2021) 12 SCC 612: (2023) 2 SCC (Civ) 625: 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 921 that grant of repeated adjournments without any
justification is not proper. It was observed at page 616: